Why McChrystal failed

Georges Clemenceau, the prime minister of France during World War I, is credited as having observed that war is too important a matter to be left to the generals.

War is an instrument of foreign policy — the province of civilian authority. That describes an important relationship, one that Gen. Stanley McChrystal seems to have misjudged.

It is no easy feat for a military commander in a theater of war to implement policies created by civilians when those policies are not to his liking.

Generals Douglas MacArthur and George Patton would attest to that. Both men ran afoul of civilian authority during their careers.

Gen. McChrystal received his fourth star just a year ago, despite his role in the cover-up of the friendly-fire killing of former NFL player Pat Tillman several years ago. He recommended Tillman for a Silver Star, knowing full well that the White House wanted to avoid embarrassment by lying about the Tillman tragedy.

The promotion to four stars, something rare in the ranks of the military and a move never taken lightly, amounted to an enormous pass for Gen. McChrystal.

Then came the assignment to prosecute the war in Afghanistan, despite the inevitable meddling and micromanaging by the civilian authorities. Gen. McChrystal knew, going in, that he would be faced with such inconveniences.

When his dissatisfaction deepened, he could have, and should have, retired at the top of his game. Instead, he sent his career down in flames and disgrace.

War is a harsh testing ground and will expose personal flaws — which can quickly lead to failure. While Gen. McChrystal’s self-destruction has its tragic side, it must also be seen as a natural outcome.

Nobody gets to wear four stars without knowing something about the Uniform Code of Military Justice — especially Article 88, which unambiguously explains what will happen if you are disrespectful to civilian authority.

It comes down to a matter of character. Gen. Stanley McChrystal and his successor in Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus, are both accomplished in the business of warfare.

Gen. Petraeus has been in charge of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since the middle of the Bush administration. One can only imagine the frustrations he has encountered during those years.

Gen. McChrystal lost his way, not on the field of battle but in the swamp of bureaucracy, where he discarded his duty as a soldier and indulged his frustration.

That is no small failing. In doing so he has shown himself unfit to command a war.